Literature DB >> 8816024

Three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implantation: a comparison of the penoscrotal and infrapubic surgical approaches.

J V Candela1, W J Hellstrom.   

Abstract

Patient satisfaction with the three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis was evaluated in two surgical subgroups following randomized implantation: those who underwent implantation via an infrapubic (IP) approach and those via a penoscrotal (PS) incision. Follow-up questionnaires were mailed to 86 patients who had undergone implantation of a Mentor alpha-1 or AMS 700CX inflatable penile prosthesis between August 1989 and November 1992. The questionnaire (54 items) was designed to elicit both factual and perceptual information in the areas of general medical information, prosthesis usage, erectile quality, postoperative complications, and general satisfaction. Questionnaire data was enhanced by a review of the clinic and hospital records of each patient who returned the questionnaire. Patients were followed postoperatively at regular intervals for a minimum of 6 months. Results demonstrate an overall patient satisfaction of 85%. Breakdown into the two surgical subgroups revealed similar rates of satisfaction by both groups. Analysis of the 42 questionnaires returned demonstrated no statistical differences in the replies of the two groups in either the factual or perceptual data. The most common sources of dissatisfaction related to penile length, girth, and difficulty with usage. This study demonstrates no compelling advantages in employing one surgical approach over the other.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8816024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J La State Med Soc        ISSN: 0024-6921


  7 in total

Review 1.  A practical overview of considerations for penile prosthesis placement.

Authors:  Landon Trost; Philip Wanzek; George Bailey
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Comparison of infrapubic versus transcrotal approaches for inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a multi-institution report.

Authors:  L W Trost; A G Boonjindasup; W J G Hellstrom
Journal:  Int J Impot Res       Date:  2014-10-23       Impact factor: 2.896

3.  Penoscrotal versus minimally invasive infrapubic approach for inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a single-center matched-pair analysis.

Authors:  Pietro Grande; Gabriele Antonini; Cristiano Cristini; Ettore De Berardinis; Antonio Gatto; Giovanni Di Lascio; Andrea Lemma; Giuseppe Gentile; Giovanni Battista Di Pierro
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-02-28       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 4.  The good, the bad, and the ugly about surgical approaches for inflatable penile prosthesis implantation.

Authors:  Javier Romero Otero; Celeste Manfredi; Steven K Wilson
Journal:  Int J Impot Res       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 2.896

5.  Long-term survival and patient satisfaction with inflatable penile prosthesis for the treatment of erectile dysfunction.

Authors:  Yoon Seob Ji; Young Hwii Ko; Phil Hyun Song; Ki Hak Moon
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2015-06-02

6.  Difference of opinion - Inflatable Penile Prosthesis - Opinion: Why I prefer the penoscrotal access.

Authors:  Celso Gromatzky
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2015 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.541

Review 7.  The infrapubic surgical approach for inflatable penile prosthesis placement.

Authors:  Annah Vollstedt; Martin S Gross; Gabriele Antonini; Paul E Perito
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2017-08
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.